The BRICS TimesIn the Presidential Reference case on governors’ powers, the Centre told the Supreme Court that governors can withhold unconstitutional bills and return them for reconsideration. The government dismissed Punjab’s argument that governors only hold the power to grant assent.
Reports of disputes between governors and state governments have surfaced frequently. From Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, and Punjab to Delhi, complaints have often emerged that governors act unilaterally. The Supreme Court is now hearing the Presidential Reference concerning this matter. For the first time, the Centre has officially presented its stand before the bench. Chief Justice of India remarked that the framers of the Constitution intended harmonious relations between governors and state governments.
On the tenth day of hearings, the Centre explained its view on gubernatorial powers. The government stated that a governor can withhold bills that appear unconstitutional. In such situations, the governor also has authority to return the bill for reconsideration. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta opposed Punjab’s stance and clarified that governors possess discretionary powers beyond simply giving assent.
How Governors Return Bills for Reconsideration
Representing the Centre, Solicitor General Mehta explained the process. He said that when a governor returns a bill, he formally declares denial of assent. Under Article 200(1), the message attached by the governor specifies the scope of reconsideration. Mehta also clarified that if a bill is reconsidered in the same year and sent back for approval, its original number remains unchanged. But if reconsideration happens the following year, a new bill number applies.
Centre Rejects Punjab’s Argument
The Centre dismissed Punjab’s submission that governors lack discretionary authority other than approving bills. SG Mehta rebutted the claim of senior advocate Arvind Datar, who argued that even an invalid bill must be signed. Mehta strongly disagreed, citing examples where governors can exercise discretion. He emphasized that governors are allowed to stop bills that are clearly unconstitutional.
According to the Centre, while interpreting Articles 200 and 201, the Supreme Court should weigh extreme and dangerous scenarios that may arise in the future. Therefore, the court must adopt a careful and balanced approach in its ruling.
Governors as Part of the Legislature
The Centre also countered opposition states’ claim that assent powers are executive in nature. Mehta said this understanding is flawed. According to him, the governor’s assent forms an integral part of the legislative process. Such assent is quasi-legislative and sui generis in nature. He added that while the executive may assist in drafting a bill, once it is introduced and passed, the process remains legislative until assent is given. That is why the governor is considered a part of the legislature.
Chief Justice’s Observations
During the hearing, Chief Justice B.R. Gavai commented on the intent of the Constitution’s framers. He said, “When the makers of the Constitution discussed the position of governors, the expectation was of a harmonious coexistence.” He further noted that earlier, while appointing governors, provincial governments (now states) were also taken into confidence.
What Is a Presidential Reference?
The Indian Constitution grants the President powers to directly approach the Supreme Court on important legal or constitutional matters. Article 143 provides for Presidential Reference. This special provision allows the President to seek the Court’s advice on issues considered necessary in law or of public importance. It is separate from routine judicial processes.
The current reference came after the Supreme Court’s ruling on 8 April in the Tamil Nadu governor’s case. The Court had said a governor cannot indefinitely hold back bills passed by the legislature. Following this judgment, the President sought the Supreme Court’s advice under Article 143.
